9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FER Act, reliance on statements and documents, joint proceedings, validity of confession, compliance with procedural laws, admissibility of statements, imposition of penalty. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of FER Act based on receiving and making payments to individuals in India on instructions from a person in Abu Dhabi. The appellant complied with a pre-deposit order. The Show Cause Notice relied on various statements and documents. The appellant argued against the reliance on statements and documents from other parties, claiming lack of joint proceedings and challenging the credibility of the evidence. The appellant also disputed receiving a substantial amount of money from individuals involved in gold smuggling. The appellant cited judgments from the FERA Board to support their arguments. The judgment discussed the legal framework regarding confessions under the Indian Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code. It differentiated between judicial and extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing the requirements for admissibility. Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act were analyzed in detail, highlighting the conditions for admissibility of confessions. Provisions such as section 25 and 26 were explained, barring confessions made to police officers from being proved against the accused. The rationale behind these provisions, as stated in previous judgments, was also elaborated upon. The judgment further delved into the distinction between confessions and statements, particularly in the context of recording statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It discussed the mandatory conditions for recording confessional statements and the consequences of non-compliance. A case law from the Andhra Pradesh High Court was referenced to emphasize the importance of following procedural requirements for recording statements under relevant laws. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal for lacking merits. It upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, considering the factual circumstances and the quantum of contravention. The judgment affirmed the correctness of the impugned order and directed the appellant to deposit the remaining penalty amount within a specified timeframe, failing which the Enforcement Directorate could recover the sum in accordance with the law.
|
